Calling all cars: cell phone networks and the future of traffic

In this in-depth look at the Mobile Millennium project, Ars examines the …

Ask someone what they think the future of driving is, and the most likely response involves self-driving cars. And it's true that sensing and autonomy are dramatically changing the modern car, but there's another information revolution taking place outside the windows. Cheap sensors and network availability are not only making individual cars smarter, but they're also boosting the brainpower the environment cars drive in.

Networks of sensors connected by the Web are making it possible to monitor traffic, parking availability, air pollution, road quality, and more in real time and across large distances. Traffic monitoring in particular has been revolutionized by these changes. This kind of data gives drivers real-time travel time predictions, makes it possible to create smart roads where tolls and signals can adapt to changing conditions, and provides urban planners with accurate and detailed pictures of traffic usage and its effects, improving city layout and planning for the future.

One of the most widespread and powerful sensors is the mobile phone. Equipped with GPS and connected to the Internet, modern smartphones are an important source of information that many companies use to provide traffic data. Google Maps, for example, makes extensive use of data collected from users on mobile phones.

Mobile Millennium was one of the first large-scale phone-based traffic monitoring projects in the US. An ongoing pilot project run by Nokia, NAVTEQ, and UC Berkeley started in 2007, its goal is to develop and demonstrate technologies needed for large-scale data collection for traffic monitoring. The project combines data from a smartphone app distributed to the public and traditional traffic sensors to provide accurate real-time monitoring of traffic conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Designing and running these sensor networks is no trivial task. Data is flooding in from many different sources in many different places, and useful data has to be separated from noise. Algorithms and models are needed to fuse the incoming data into a comprehensible whole, and protecting individual privacy is also a major challenge. Yet the potential gains are huge, so there is an unceasing demand for more and better data.

In this article, Ars goes behind the scenes at Mobile Millennium to examine the technology behind a distributed sensor network. We'll look at how the system is designed to protect user privacy, examine how data from thousands of mobile phones and hundreds of static sensors are combined to measure traffic flow, and look at how this technology will impact the future of driving.

An intelligent highway

The most obvious use of traffic data is to give drivers options for reducing the effects of traffic jams and accidents, either by taking alternate routes or simply by changing their travel times. Trip-planning software already can use traffic speed information to minimize travel time or fuel usage over a trip, and future hybrids and electric vehicles might use traffic predictions to help the onboard computer optimize battery usage.

The data is also of more than just immediate importance. Having good data on current traffic and road usage is vital to predicting future patterns of traffic, which is important for planning purposes. Ars recently explored the issues related to congestion pricing, one of the most popular tools for alleviating congestion. Congesting pricing uses dynamic tolls that are adjusted according to road usage to try to reduce traffic during peak conditions. The success of such schemes is heavily dependent on being able to measure the effects of pricing changes on driving patterns.

Finally, accurately measuring traffic is also useful beyond the immediate realm of driving. Cars and roads have a huge impact on our societies, and traffic has many secondary effects. For example, traffic is a major source of potentially harmful noise, and the generation of noise maps of the city is one of several projects underway that piggybacks on the Mobile Millennium data and network. By correlating noise patterns to population maps, it's possible to assess the impact of noise on the city's people. Cars are also a major source of air pollution, and traffic data can be correlated and combined with measurements taken by pollution sensors to build a map of pollutants produced by cars around the city.

Going mobile

For a long time, traffic sensing was mostly reliant on static sensors. Inductive loop detectors—metal rings embedded in the road—detect the metal in cars that pass over them. Traffic cameras are another common sensor type, and the RFID tags used for electronic toll payment can be tracked to provide data.

These types of sensors are generally pretty accurate, but fixed infrastructure is expensive to deploy and operate. When these sensors break, they're also expensive to repair and replace, so they're typically placed at key places like intersections and highway on- and off-ramps. This means that when traffic conditions change, like when an accident occurs, the changes aren't detected until their effects propagate back through the traffic flow upstream to a sensor.

The need for ever more data from ever more widespread sensors has meant that going to mobile sensors is a necessity, and mobile phones are an obvious choice. It's an oft-quoted statistic that worldwide, there are more cell phones in use than toothbrushes. And an ever-growing fraction of those phones, especially in the US, are smartphones, equipped with GPS and Internet connectivity.

Arent a lot of the new traffic flow sensors using Bluetooth sniffing to determine traffic flow and speed? They sniff your Bluetooth packets for the MAC address and then when it shows up down the road it knows how long it took to get from A to B? You still use peoples cell phones but without any client software. The sensors are mounted on poles. They're still fixed but easier than installing loops in the pavement.

Arent a lot of the new traffic flow sensors using Bluetooth sniffing to determine traffic flow and speed? They sniff your Bluetooth packets for the MAC address and then when it shows up down the road it knows how long it took to get from A to B? You still use peoples cell phones but without any client software. The sensors are mounted on poles. They're still fixed but easier than installing loops in the pavement.

That's a fantastic idea until they start using the same tech to nab speeders by snapping a photo of your license plate, and accidentally accumulate the data to track everyone's whereabouts. Sorry to be that guy.

I don't mind networked cars, but they need to make it conspicuous and put an off switch on it. I want to be able to rip it out and toss it over a bridge if Matt Damon is trying to track me down.

In terms of modelling flow with only a small sample, that's what most geographers do, isn't it? They measure the cross-section of a river, toss in a satsuma and measure how quickly the satsuma travels downstream. Or they just play pooh sticks. Forgive me if this is a useless oversimplification, but in this case, they've got x cars passing VTL A, y cars passing VTL B and the frequency of how often a VTL is passed gives the speed.

My dream in life is being able to just sleep on the 60, which should be 30 min, 8 mile drive to work. I'd have years of my life back. Throw a 40" plasma in my car and it's even more.

At that point one start to wonder about individualized light rail or something similar. Note, individualized in that anyone can call up a "train" at any time rather then owning their own.

Kind of like automated taxis? That'd be cool.

Something of that sort, yes. Tho i am unsure if there should be a kind of "carpool" involved or not, in that if you called for transport and there was a nearby with available capacity it would be routed your way rather then send a empty (i guess it would depend somewhat on how much it would add to existing travel time for those already in it).

This is all a thought experiment for me mostly, trying to make public transport both cost effective and available outside of normal office hours (they have a bad habit of either stopping or sharply reducing activity outside of rush hours, meaning people grab their car anyways to be sure they get where they need to go outside of routine).

I'm a transportation engineer, and let me give you people one serious Protip while we're on the subject.

Traffic lights are programmed for network progression if you go the speed limit.

It annoys me so much setting up these networks just to see people speed from stop light to stop light, slowing us down with their queue. Seriously, just go the damn speed limit and the light will hit green when you get there most of the time (ideally 90% throughout the day).

Traffic cameras that monitor the flow of traffic and car wait times to adjust the timing on the fly are catching on in popularity and are being rolled out into metros. They're just expensive. Getting any money for infrastructure investment in this country is insane, and new technologies like cameras are among the first things cut.

Hell, as good of an idea all of this is... this is serious long term and future dreaming. The legal and budgetary nightmare of this renders it a pipe dream for massive use for decades.

Arent a lot of the new traffic flow sensors using Bluetooth sniffing to determine traffic flow and speed?

Yes. The bluetooth sensors are far cheaper than the RFID sensors that were the main data collection method before, and as more and more people have bluetooth phones, the data collected gets better.

Quote:

That's a fantastic idea until they start using the same tech to nab speeders by snapping a photo of your license plate, and accidentally accumulate the data to track everyone's whereabouts. Sorry to be that guy.

Well, if you're being "that guy" with the tin foil hat, then you need to ditch your cell phone entirely. The nature of the device means that it provides a lot of ways to track you. On a more realistic note, given the strong pushback against red light cameras, we're quite a long way away from automated speeding tickets becoming politically viable.

Quote:

Traffic lights are theoretically programmed for network progression on major thoroughfares if you go the speed limit.

TFTFY. Properly synchronized lights are a wonderful thing, but until all the lights are on a central monitoring and control system, there are going to have to be choices of which roads get synchronized (in addition to taking the time and effort to actually go do it). Once everything is controlled centrally it should be a lot easier to run the traffic patterns and road crossings through an analysis that synchronizes the lights to keep people moving as much as possible, and change that up multiple times a day.

Quote:

Hell, as good of an idea all of this is... this is serious long term and future dreaming. The legal and budgetary nightmare of this renders it a pipe dream for massive use for decades.

Depends on the location. Probably 80% of the well traveled surface street intersections in Houston have traffic cameras, and the freeways are completely covered by RFID, bluetooth, and cameras. Granted, we're way ahead of most places with this stuff (it's more important here than most places, and we actually spend money on road infrastructure and improvement).

Traffic lights are theoretically programmed for network progression on major thoroughfares if you go the speed limit.

TFTFY. Properly synchronized lights are a wonderful thing, but until all the lights are on a central monitoring and control system, there are going to have to be choices of which roads get synchronized (in addition to taking the time and effort to actually go do it). Once everything is controlled centrally it should be a lot easier to run the traffic patterns and road crossings through an analysis that synchronizes the lights to keep people moving as much as possible, and change that up multiple times a day.

Quote:

Hell, as good of an idea all of this is... this is serious long term and future dreaming. The legal and budgetary nightmare of this renders it a pipe dream for massive use for decades.

Depends on the location. Probably 80% of the well traveled surface street intersections in Houston have traffic cameras, and the freeways are completely covered by RFID, bluetooth, and cameras. Granted, we're way ahead of most places with this stuff (it's more important here than most places, and we actually spend money on road infrastructure and improvement).

You're right, I meant major roads and not arterial ones.

The thing about a centralized control center is I'm not entirely sure how effective or necessary it is for larger metros. It's a massive investment. Smaller towns and cities (both in size and commuter/driving area) can and probably would see much greater benefits then a massive metro with a lot of sprawl.

I think an ad-hoc network of car detecting cameras is a much simpler and cheaper alternative, one that could potentially be used for future development. I don't see the urgency for massive computing/network process to be used to develop a more real time system. The benefit of adjusting a few lights to alleviate some congestion because of a car accident seems meager when looking at the logistics of implementing such a system. Granted there are some other rare events it can help with, but for the simple perfection of timing the network for progression under normal daily/hourly conditions it can be done with cameras.

Hooking them up to individual lights and giving them some wireless range to communicate with lights in the immediate area would allow them to more effectively adjust things on a smaller scale than it can by analyzing what a traffic light several miles away is doing.

The minor adjustments using typical traffic equations and standard lengths may take longer to properly adjust themselves out to minimize area congestion, but the significantly lower cost and benefits against a centralized total tracking system seems to make it a better alternative.

There's also added benefit of it's a much easier solution to scale up or down based on needs and traffic changes (unless they are real drastic).

As an aside, TxDOT does a great job compared to some other state DOTs.

I'm a transportation engineer, and let me give you people one serious Protip while we're on the subject.

Traffic lights are programmed for network progression if you go the speed limit.

I realize the job you and your colleagues have is difficult, but this "Protip" is an annoyance I deal with driving daily - going the speed limit or not.

If I go the speed limit, and the light is timed to change when my car reaches the next intersection, the fact that there are cars in front of me that have been stopped at the light often seems to be forgotten. That light should have changed 30 - 45 seconds ago in order for my flow to remain uninterrupted.

I would like to see drivers trained to leave more space between them when stopping, and that way everyone can GO when the light turns green, rather than have to let the slack back out. More like a train moves -- the back moves when the front moves, rather than a lose chain that you start to pull on. Hopefully this is built into the automated tranports of the future.

I'm a transportation engineer, and let me give you people one serious Protip while we're on the subject.

Traffic lights are programmed for network progression if you go the speed limit.

I wish that was how it worked where I lived. This is especially noticeable on my way to work. If I drive the speed limit (40 in this case) I will end up stopped at 4 different lights (including missing the turn arrow). If I drive 45 I will hit all the lights (including the turn arrow). That is five minutes of waiting right there.

My drive home is worse.....the light timing and traffic reality have nothing to do with each other......

I'm a transportation engineer, and let me give you people one serious Protip while we're on the subject.

Traffic lights are programmed for network progression if you go the speed limit.

I realize the job you and your colleagues have is difficult, but this "Protip" is an annoyance I deal with driving daily - going the speed limit or not.

If I go the speed limit, and the light is timed to change when my car reaches the next intersection, the fact that there are cars in front of me that have been stopped at the light often seems to be forgotten. That light should have changed 30 - 45 seconds ago in order for my flow to remain uninterrupted.

I would like to see drivers trained to leave more space between them when stopping, and that way everyone can GO when the light turns green, rather than have to let the slack back out. More like a train moves -- the back moves when the front moves, rather than a lose chain that you start to pull on. Hopefully this is built into the automated tranports of the future.

The thing is, you simply can't make it perfect and just make it as good as money and other resources allow. Some engineers and even the state's DOT people simply don't care at times and just ballpark the actual timing or just pencil whip the paperwork to make it look like they did the work. But that shouldn't be surprising.

When it comes to progression the concept is simple. You know how far the lights are apart as well as tue speed limit, you know how long the light timings are, you must then figure out the offset to accomplish one pack of cars hitting the green at one light and being able to travel that set distance and speed to the next, where it should hit green. Getting those offsets right is the challenge unless all lights have the exact same timing and distance between them (which they don't and don't bother preaching to the choir about how they should be that way).

The cars you see when you arrive at the light are people who arrived late (likely because they couldn't average the speed limit because of other stalls at lights or they just speed through thinking they'd make it) or they entered on from the arterial. The problem compounds and gets worse. That's the benefit to things like traffic cameras. They can see those lines form and can tweak the timing as need be to lessen the problem

In essence, traffic timing is an art as much as it is a science. Computer modeling has made things a lot better, but there's just so much that can be done.

I'm a transportation engineer, and let me give you people one serious Protip while we're on the subject.

Traffic lights are programmed for network progression if you go the speed limit.

I wish that was how it worked where I lived. This is especially noticeable on my way to work. If I drive the speed limit (40 in this case) I will end up stopped at 4 different lights (including missing the turn arrow). If I drive 45 I will hit all the lights (including the turn arrow). That is five minutes of waiting right there.

My drive home is worse.....the light timing and traffic reality have nothing to do with each other......

You're driving at peak traffic conditions, it's only feasible to do so much for what they can accomplish. Typically lights get initially set up based on their peak 15 minute traffic flow for the day, and the design is some percentage of that equivalent hourly rate (peak 15 min number of cars x 4 x design efficiency).

Depending on the priority of the roads you travel on, you'll only make so many green lights till the inevitable

Also, truth be told...we know people speed. A lot of designs are built in to accomodate people going 5 to 10mph faster then they are supposed to be. It isn't supposed to be incorporated into timing calculations, but you never know considering the vast differences in state, county, city legislation and practices regarding these matters.

I would like to see drivers trained to leave more space between them when stopping, and that way everyone can GO when the light turns green, rather than have to let the slack back out. More like a train moves -- the back moves when the front moves, rather than a lose chain that you start to pull on. Hopefully this is built into the automated tranports of the future.

Not going to work. How do you think increasing the space between cars when they are queued behind a light is going to let more cars through in a given time interval?

You need to leave some safe distance between cars because the back doesn't brake when the front brakes. So given a time spacing between cars, the distance naturally drops as the speed drops when you stop at a light, and opens back up naturally when the light changes. With your method, you get the same spacing through the lights as you would anyway, just you keep that spacing when stop behind the lights. So you get to go when the lights change, but you are 300 yards further back?

And interestingly, trains don't work like that either. There is a slack in the couplings so that when the engine starts to move, it is only trying to start moving one carriage at a time, as static resistance is greater than rolling resistance.

I would like to see drivers trained to leave more space between them when stopping, and that way everyone can GO when the light turns green, rather than have to let the slack back out. More like a train moves -- the back moves when the front moves, rather than a lose chain that you start to pull on. Hopefully this is built into the automated tranports of the future.

Not going to work. How do you think increasing the space between cars when they are queued behind a light is going to let more cars through in a given time interval?

You need to leave some safe distance between cars because the back doesn't brake when the front brakes. So given a time spacing between cars, the distance naturally drops as the speed drops when you stop at a light, and opens back up naturally when the light changes. With your method, you get the same spacing through the lights as you would anyway, just you keep that spacing when stop behind the lights. So you get to go when the lights change, but you are 300 yards further back?

And interestingly, trains don't work like that either. There is a slack in the couplings so that when the engine starts to move, it is only trying to start moving one carriage at a time, as static resistance is greater than rolling resistance.

Valid points, but even if you can't leave full "at speed" distance between the cars, it would be nice to get the guy at the back at least moving a *little bit*. My main grievance is when someone remains fully stopped for countable seconds before moving at all after the car in front of them is well underway.

You're technically right about the train, but relatively speaking there's nearly no slack when comparing train cars to road ones. And I still hope our future transportation systems just get around this entire situation somehow.

Valid points, but even if you can't leave full "at speed" distance between the cars, it would be nice to get the guy at the back at least moving a *little bit*. My main grievance is when someone remains fully stopped for countable seconds before moving at all after the car in front of them is well underway.

You are supposed to do that. So when the kid on a bicycle zooms out into the middle of the intersection and the car in front of you slams on their brakes, you don't run into them.

I'd like to see this concept combined with the open data movement. Provide open, anonymized raw data and data processed only to the point of speed/volume data. Leave applications to the private sector. Assembling and performing the 1st step of processing to turn the raw anonymous data into travel speeds would be less expensive than deploying an expansive roadside sensor network (even using less intrusive, less expensive sensors such as Bluetooth-based ones). This provides the data for the local and state DOTs to more efficiently manage and operate the networks, and to conduct long-range planning, AND provides a rich data source for hundreds of app developers. It lowers the bar to entry, compared with having the data collected from uncompensated volunteers remain proprietary, as happens now with systems like Google's. When transit schedule data becomes available in a standard open format, as is happening in more and more cities, dozens of useful new applications are developed to serve transit riders, at no additional cost to the transit agencies. The same could happen for the far larger percentage of travelers who use cars.

I don't see the urgency for massive computing/network process to be used to develop a more real time system.

It's not just reacting to realtime events, it's that synchronizing more than two major streets that cross at once is so complicated that nobody even tries right now. If they care then they are synchronizing the major roads, and leaving the rest to chance. Now, theoretically you could use a computer to analyse all the lights and come up with a plan that would keep most roads synchronized as much as possible, then have the technicians go out and set all the lights according to that plan. In reality actually getting all of the coordinated (and keeping it synced up through maintenance and repairs, etc) is nearly impossible. If all the lights were controlled centrally it would be comparatively easy. I know Houston plans to finish connecting all of the major lights to the Transtar (a joint organization consisting of TxDOT, the city, the county, and METRO) operations center in the next couple of years, but I haven't heard any updates in a while.

I don't see the urgency for massive computing/network process to be used to develop a more real time system.

It's not just reacting to realtime events, it's that synchronizing more than two major streets that cross at once is so complicated that nobody even tries right now. If they care then they are synchronizing the major roads, and leaving the rest to chance. Now, theoretically you could use a computer to analyse all the lights and come up with a plan that would keep most roads synchronized as much as possible, then have the technicians go out and set all the lights according to that plan. In reality actually getting all of the coordinated (and keeping it synced up through maintenance and repairs, etc) is nearly impossible. If all the lights were controlled centrally it would be comparatively easy. I know Houston plans to finish connecting all of the major lights to the Transtar (a joint organization consisting of TxDOT, the city, the county, and METRO) operations center in the next couple of years, but I haven't heard any updates in a while.

Central command isn't just what I was saying though, it's the massive computing network associated with it that I think is overkill. It's my professional opinion that it's over-design.

I don't see how an investment in such a massive undertaking provides any real benefits. There are serious limitations when designing network progression that are from things that you simply can't fix from a comprehensive traffic flow database. Knowing where vehicles are going to and fro doesn't produce any relevant information to the problem.

Is this traffic engineer's wet dream of having driverless cars ever going to occur against the auto insurance, taxi, and limousine industries opposition? Is it really in the auto manufacturer's best interest to make his product have less differentiation due to a government mandated driving style?

Is this traffic engineer's wet dream of having driverless cars ever going to occur against the auto insurance, taxi, and limousine industries opposition? Is it really in the auto manufacturer's best interest to make his product have less differentiation due to a government mandated driving style?

.. and that means sending one round our test track, and using our calibrated racing ballast. Some say, he's swallowed a lump of Platinum-Iridium while on holiday in France, others say he swims in a giant vault filled with all the steering wheels missing from our modern autocars. All we know is, he's called the Stig!

(Man in helmet and fireproof suit steps off of a scale, grabs two small steel weights, and slips into the autocar. He sits while the car efficiently routes the safest, legally responsible path around the track. At times, he leans slightly into a turn. He drops one of the weights in the center console as the car jostles a bit around Regbo. Jeremy makes a snide comment about the Stig's choice of radio station, which often gets stuck buffering.)

You don't need a device equipped with a GPS (although it helps) to locate it with enough precision.Google Maps on my ancient 3G always locate my position within a 10 meters (30 feet) accuracy, and that's sign that those algorithms that do triangulations are getting better and better.

All you need is to talk to the cell-phone companies in order for them to disclose, in an anonymous form, the location of every phone hooked to their towers. (smartphones and non-smartphones)They do keep this information because when the police looks for information on the whereabouts of suspected criminals, they often disclose it.

Japan has gone the traditional way, back in the 90s they've deployed a series of sensors all across the country, usually installed on poles, that monitor the traffic nationwide.Data from these sensors are then put together and sent as a, digital data, on top of the analog broadcast where a normal FM receiver, and now a GPS unit can change the color of the road to indicate the traffic condition. (http://www.vics.or.jp/english/about/history.html)And now they've added weather forecast and little bit of news.I am not sure how much the system cost, but I believe it's cheaper than putting sensor underneath the pavement and certainly cheaper to maintain.And it's free for anyone to use it.

Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't believe that the primary purpose is just taxation?

When you don't have enough road for the cars, it's a way to keep a couple of lanes always moving. It's certainly not an egalitarian way to go, but it does work. There isn't anywhere that doesn't need more money for roads, so taxing their use is one of the more reasonable ways to go about getting it.

Quote:

Is this traffic engineer's wet dream of having driverless cars ever going to occur against the auto insurance, taxi, and limousine industries opposition? Is it really in the auto manufacturer's best interest to make his product have less differentiation due to a government mandated driving style?

Yes, because it's going to make the roads far safer. Less accidents, less traffic (most light-medium congestion is caused by humans doing stupid or selfish things while driving), and less drunk drivers and crazy truckers. I'm sure it will start with just a few lanes on freeways and interstates, but the technology is improving fast enough (way faster than anyone thought it would) that we are only a couple of years away from a car being a better driver than a human in almost all circumstances. As far as taxis, etc go, they will still be needed, just without drivers. Sucks for the drivers, but that's progress. Local truckers will probably still be necessary, since they do more than just driving, but I imagine long haul truckers will be replaced very quickly.

Quote:

All you need is to talk to the cell-phone companies in order for them to disclose, in an anonymous form, the location of every phone hooked to their towers.

That's never going to happen for many reasons. Even if they were willing and it was deemed legal, the logistics and technical hurdles would be ridiculously complicated. This stuff is working right now. Unless you opt out (it asks) every time your android phone is using Google maps or navigation with GPS it is sending your location info and speed to their servers.

Is this traffic engineer's wet dream of having driverless cars ever going to occur against the auto insurance, taxi, and limousine industries opposition? Is it really in the auto manufacturer's best interest to make his product have less differentiation due to a government mandated driving style?

Yes, because it's going to make the roads far safer. Less accidents, less traffic (most light-medium congestion is caused by humans doing stupid or selfish things while driving), and less drunk drivers and crazy truckers. I'm sure it will start with just a few lanes on freeways and interstates, but the technology is improving fast enough (way faster than anyone thought it would) that we are only a couple of years away from a car being a better driver than a human in almost all circumstances. As far as taxis, etc go, they will still be needed, just without drivers. Sucks for the drivers, but that's progress. Local truckers will probably still be necessary, since they do more than just driving, but I imagine long haul truckers will be replaced very quickly.

Do you really think government that exists to make it's buddies money wants their doctor friends to have less business? What are all the cops going to do when there are no tickets or accidents to attend to?

Taxis and limousines will be in much less demand because everyone's car will be there personal chaffeur. The only business will be the few that are without cars like tourists who do not rent a car. The drivers are not the ones who will be able to do anything about that. The owners of the now worthless medallions will not let this happen without a fight.

I thought GPS only gave location, not vector. Am I wrong on this? If it is just a location, and they are not tracking which vehicle is which between points, how are they getting a speed at all? Are they taking multiple measurements around each point rather than just a single measurement and then only anonymizing the point sets between measurement locations or something?

Quote:

I'm a transportation engineer, and let me give you people one serious Protip while we're on the subject.

Traffic lights are programmed for network progression if you go the speed limit.

Pro tip to the engineers from a driver: People speed. Speeders are also least likely to change those habits (i.e. speeding) just because you tell them the system isn't set up for them.

Personally I think it is possible and it is the next generation of cars. Google is developing a self driving Toyota Prius. With a huge camera on top of it which senses the location of the vehicle by comparing images. But it can be perfected more. Why can't all cars just run on central system and the passenger just vocally advise the computer to drive to a certain location. This would make driving less stressful and a lot more enjoyable. It would be more ideal if there were digital displays in these cars so that passengers might be watching a movie or something while they're travelling.

More on my idea of the computer integrated automated vehicle.

1. Navigation - Like I mentioned it would be ideal to have a central computer that plots out your trip with least amount of time.

2. General Rules: The computer accelerates the vehicle to a safe limit in the road and 'cutsoff' at a given point. It will be aware of the state of road signs ahead and will control the car accordingly.

3. Passengers: For a long time, people have been agitated and perplexed by the idea of driving because of traffic and blah blah blah. Now employees might be able to possibly get their work done before they get home. Otherwise, they might be able to do the usual make calls, send messages, mail. It could be possibly integrated with the new home manager where you can control the state of your home from miles away and also have games, movie and the whole lot. It should also have a Passenger Health monitor.

4. Other benefits: It could give more time and also allow a more pleasant journey with more time. It would be much safe than people getting drunk and driving.

I would also appreciate it if my idea is not referred to or used without citing and permission.